"Dedicated to electing progressive candidates... advancing a progressive
agenda... a commitment to following a fusion, or cross-nomination,
approach... and we continue to expand our vision (and effectiveness)! "
Sorry, I'm still lost folks... too much mumbo jumbo for me.
What exactly is the 12 point agenda of PM as referenced below? Are there
specific positions or policy statements associated with livable wages,
excellent public schools or affordable housing, for example? Are there
objective criteria established as part of the overall screening process? I
guess I'd like to hear more about the PM Metro Agenda described below (but
please, no more mumbo jumbo). Thanks in advance.
Michael Hohmann
13th Ward
> -----Original Message-In Part-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Martha Easton
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Mpls] More on Progressive Minnesota
>
snip
>
> ...we are
> an organization dedicated to electing progressive candidates to
> metro-area
> offices. Candidates who we have endorsed in the past and with
> whom we work
> include: Jim Niland, Julie Sabo, Scott Dibble, Dore Mead, Gail
> Dorfman, and
> many others. We also are committed to advancing a progressive
> agenda through
> referenda and ballot initiatives. We were the organizers behind
> the 1995 Living
> Wage referendum in St. Paul, both the metro-area referenda against public
> financing of stadiums, and we were the lead organizers of the
> recent St. Paul
> school funding referendum. In addition to campaign organizing,
> we work in many
> other ways to push progressive issues. We have coalition
> partnerships with 4
> unions. Our almost 3000 members have interests in issues which
> affect our
> lives, and, through open membership meetings, have created a 12
> point Metro
> Agenda. This agenda focuses on issues like livable wages,
> excellent public
> schools, and affordable housing. Progressive Minnesota was
> founded as The New
> Party, and has at its core a commitment--in campaigns--to
> following a fusion, or
> cross-nomination, approach. WE WANT PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATES TO
> WIN. We have had
> a lot of successes in the past 7 years, and we continue to expand
> our vision
> (and effectiveness)!
>
> Our endorsement process is open to every PM member. Last
> Saturday, there were
> more than 40 who participated. Earlier, at an open membership
> meeting, we
> decided to focus--at this stage--in Minneapolis Wards 9, 10, 11,
> and 12. All
> known candidates in those wards were invited to screen.
> Candidates were asked
> to fill out an extensive questionnaire, which asked specifically
> about issues
> from our Metro Agenda. PM members who participated in the
> endorsement meeting
> had copies of the questionnaires. Candidates who screened were
> asked to give an
> opening statement, and then were asked a standard six questions
> by members.
> Then we had a brief open question period, where members as
> individuals could ask
> their own questions. When we evaluated each candidate, we
> discussed strengths
> and weaknesses in terms of electability and issues. The discussion was
> organized to be fairly straightforward.
snip
>
> I do not think it is accurate to suggest that there was any one
> issue that sank
> any particular candidate in the 10th Ward endorsement discussion.
> The general
> sense of the PM members present is that all three candidates
> could potentially
> be very strong, but that the group could not coalesce around any
> one candidate
> at this time. Just as we were a group of progressives who were having a
> difficult time deciding on a candidate at this point, voters in
> Ward 10 must
> also be having a difficult time finding decision criteria. And a
> PM early
> endorsement in the race wouldnÕt accomplish our overall goal for early
> endorsements. This is my sense as to why we declined to endorse
> in Ward 10 at
> this time.
>
> The original posting on this list asked PM members who were
> present at the
> screenings to share their individual responses. While I hope
> more people will
> share their impressions of the day, I do not think that any one personÕs
> impressions should be taken as a summary of the hows and whys of
> any particular
> decision. We were all there as members of Progressive Minnesota,
> and we were
> there as individuals with different goals, emphases and issues of
> importance.
> Some difficult decisions were made, and made well, I think.
>
> I was extremely impressed by the level of discussion about every
> candidate, and
> the overall degree of commitment on the part of the PM members
> who participated
> in the endorsement process. For the most part, people found very
> fair ways to
> express strong ideas and concerns, excellent questions were
> asked, and decisions
> were made on very reasonable grounds. As committed progressives
> and as members
> of an effective and growing progressive organization, I think we
> did a great job
> last Saturday. More important, I think our work--which is really just
> beginning--is going to help elect great progressive candidates to the
> Minneapolis City Council!
>
> If you have questions about the endorsement process, about our
> Metro Agenda, or
> about the work of Progressive Minnesota in general, you should
> call the PM
> office at: 651-641-6199.
>
> Martha Easton
> Northeast Minneapolis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
